I first became aware that there may be a problem on 7th January when a source, who we’ll call ‘Steve’ contacted me with an extraordinary story. The Queen, he told me, had been unwell and it looked likely that Prince Charles might become Prince Regent and take over the Queen’s constitutional duties. However, there was a big problem. There were many within the Establishment who had grave concerns that Prince Charles was too political and would interfere in government policy and so I should view the big Prince Andrew/Jeffrey Epstein stories in The Daily Mail, which at the time had just begun, in the context of this. If Prince Charles did not make a “deal” soon then there would be further revelations in the media.
I was intrigued enough at the time to contact a friend of mine who is a senior journalist, someone I can talk to and I recounted what I had been told. My friend, far from pouring cold water on the entire idea, felt that there were elements of the story which were very plausible and we both agreed to look into this.
I should say here that neither he nor I found any evidence that the Queen had health problems, beyond a few stories in unreliable American supermarket magazines, and I’m now certain that this is untrue but in reality that point is moot. At 89 years old, it is an extremely big ask for the general public to expect Her Majesty to continue to undertake her constitutional duties far into the future.
We are accustomed to believe that the monarchy is only symbolic but that is not the case. It is only when situations like this arise that it becomes clear that the Head of State is an extremely important cog in the UKs constitutional machine, without which the machine simply stops working. The fact is that the Head of State signs every piece of legislation into law and if, for whatever reason, the Head of State is unable to fulfil those duties with due consideration, potentially, theoretically, any legislation that might be signed could be legally challenged and that would be an extremely serious situation for the country to arrive at.
Yesterday I think we saw a further public escalation of this constitutional crisis as, the The Times, The Telegraph, and The Daily Mail all published stories which, to varying degrees and justified by a soon to be published ‘official’ biography of Prince Charles, began to lay before the public the concerns that have been bubbling behind the scenes but I fear that we are so used to categorising ‘Royal Stories’ as trivial that many might not have understood the seriousness of the situation. Plainly, this escalation indicates that no “deal” has been reached as yet.
Not only did we learn more of the concerns that many have, that Prince Charles if he became Prince Regent or King would continue to interfere in politics, not only did we learn of his apparent obstinacy and unwillingness to accept that the role of the Head of State in a modern constitutional democracy must be above politics, we also learned something about the future revelations which could be interpreted as further escalations in this crisis.
A decision by the Supreme Court is due on whether what has been termed ‘the black spider memos’ will be made public. These memos are 27 letters exchanged between Prince Charles and ministers in seven Whitehall departments during Tony Blair’s second Government between September 2004 and April 2005. Dominic Grieve, Attorney General had argued that they should not be made public, observing that the documents could show Charles to be “disagreeing with Government policy” and thus be “seriously damaging” to the political neutrality expected of the monarch.
If these documents are released and they demonstrate a political interference beyond Prince Charles’s known interests in environmental issues, the plight of hill farmers and architecture and instead demonstrate interference in matters which touch on issues that are the preserve of a democratically elected government, then, as Dominic Grieve pointed out it could be extremely damaging to Prince Charles.
Soon after this Supreme Court decision a BBC documentary is due to be broadcast regarding Diana. It is said that this documentary if broadcast would be extremely damaging to Prince Charles’s prospects of succeeding his mother to the throne.
Both of these two events, if they occur, could be regarded as further escalations in this ongoing constitutional crisis if a “deal” isn’t struck soon.
But here is the problem; how can any “deal” be struck? How can anyone be certain that if Prince Charles becomes Regent or King that he will keep to his side of any “deal”?
I am not wealthy or powerful, I am not a politician, or a civil servant, and I’m not a royal courtier or a newspaper editor. I am just an ordinary person and I can see many things that are wrong with our country, a broken political system, increasing inequality, and political priorities that only look after the interests of those with power. But the People of this country have the rights and power necessary to address these and other issues if they have the courage to do so. What the People need is not a King or Regent that interferes in government policy, what the People need is stability and an impartial Head of State who shows no favour.
We’ll have to wait and see how all this plays out but I hope some accommodation can be found. If not Charles really could turn out to be an extremely unlucky name for a King.
theneedleblog 
Well I dont know about the rest of you but I have got my knitting needles out and I want a front seat view,I have eaten all the cake what now????????? offffffffffffff with his head
Madame Defarge it is most unwise to impersonate Marie Antoinette unless you have a talent for knitting sans tete.
I actually made an allusion to this well over two years ago on an unrelated topic
“….and all around the world the tap tapping of computer keyboards, like Madam Defarge’s clicking knitting needles, record the names, the faces, and the deeds.”
Great minds etc … ;-)
Giants came before us and it’s only right that we stand upon their shoulders.
Your post two years ago lead to a reply alluding to Virgil’s Aenid.
We were fortunate enough to be born early enough to get an half decent education without going to Eton.
Then again perhaps you did !
Not I. If I had I’d be a journo on a broadsheet not a blogger. ;-)
Hahaha bless you made my day xxxxxxx thank you,I will sit and chuckle all through my council meeting now tonight,and be made to sit in the corner as normal
@ Gojam, had you been a broadsheet journo we would now be railing against your complicity !
Some do anyway…
;-)
@ Madame Defarge, you’re most welcome comrade.
chas reminding his enemies he has teeth even if he is a peace mongering hippy who does not wish to sell arms like some of the family could be a possible motivation for some of the selections of facts pointed out to the citizens in recent msm reports.
imho he isnt a player but he might have some talented folk on his team ( he is not bad at hedging hawthorn but he is not smart or nasty enough for dark politics).
interesting times require interesting tactics , i never thought chas might be useful til today .(i would not trust his team ever )
I can’t really see how pressuring Charles would be served by the Andy/Epstein stories. More, it looks as if *both* princes are under attack; why might that be?
the variety of themes and historical anecdote in the msm (as shown by a google search )at the mo is rather interesting .
it appears there are at least two factions ,him and “others” but others might be crudely broken down to pro and anti for a variety of reasons .
if i am correct he might be in favor of a democratic egalitarian republic which is a rather fun thought .
or he is being clever and appearing to be so inclined.
we live in interesting times .
are you sure that lillibet is healthy and wise ?(wealthy is taken as proven).
over the centuries some of the skeletons have ended under the floor.
im not just referring to silencing embarrassing truths about those in power or in favour although there have been fatal consequences from those,there is a long tradition of family disputes leading to murder of family members and mass slaughter of the public .
it would be interesting to test the world’s royalty and compare the frequency of their “psychopathy”genetic and neurological markers with that of the population in general.
although there is a long tradition of royal violence there is a strong possibility that opposition to chas is partly based on his refusal to be an arms dealer .
Check out what Professor Ernst has to say on the subject of Charles. He probably has every right to be peeved as he suspects the hand of Cornwall got him the push – as a prominent voice against homeopathy and the other alt meds that our future king is thought to favour.
http://edzardernst.com/?s=charles
If there’s one subject that must surely get the Powers that be twitching it will be the close friendship between Charles and Jimmy Savile. I’m sure that there are other quite worrying skeletons in the closet too that the establishment wish to remain hidden hence why there is a keenness for the generation skip scenario.
How many of those skeletons were deliberately placed in those cupboards as a way of gaining leverage and power? If Savile and his ilk were used as tools to control key players in Ireland, why would they not be used to control a king?
We can speculate but unless the Royals are subject to FOI requests like any other publically funded institution, they will continue to hide behind smoke and mirrors and interfere and ask for unmerited rewards and considerations with no public scrutiny – like the Queen wanting a hand-out from the poverty fund.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-tried-to-use-state-poverty-fund-to-heat-buckingham-palace-2088179.html
The Windsors are no longer subject to FOI and as this fund was only refused because of the PR consequences, if it was requested now it would be granted.
I can’t understand the general “William should take over” line either – I don’t want any monarchy but least of all an overindulged young with minimum work experience and a workshy woman who was a royal wag.
a complex subject,there are several reasons why chas might be seen as a problem to be bypassed as not entirely in the interests of tptb( some aspects of this might include his apparent lefty/ hippy attitudes that seem to flavour his overt political interests ,he might be rather well informed in many matters which could be dangerous to his enemies,the dead princess effect on him personally and therefore on the institution of monarchy etc etc ).
the situation with ed8 was slightly different and open to a variety of interpretations ,his pro riech opinions (which may have been based on personal affections rather than political beliefs)were at odds with those of global capitalism which intended to use the riech to destroy(or at least weaken )the global influence of soviet and german government power and turn a tidy profit at the same time.
although the excuse was wallis the reasons were geopoliticoeconomic .
i cant prove that the stick used to lever him off the throne lever was the photographs that mary did not secure when she got most of tredagar’s collection (the carrot was comfortable exile) but it seems plausible.
it also seems plausible that such matters were mentioned in what are known as “the hess papers”.
as in all situations where power (even apparently symbolic power)is concentrated at a node there will be rival factions seeking control of that node .
Super Rich Banker Strauss-Khan Ex IMF ex wannabe French Socialist President Liberté, égalité, fraternité (stop laughing at the back) up for aggravated pimping today.
“The trial is scheduled to last three weeks, with Strauss-Kahn not expected to testify until Feb. 10.
Investigators have compiled hundreds of pages of testimony” ap
the french have some splendidly worded charges they can use but aggravated pimping is a classic.
Catherine Mayer had no special access, the autobiography is unofficial.
She seems to be reticent about personal publicity, her family and friends all seem to be arty Frankfurt School followers.
The book is obviously an objective view then ;-)
Andy,
If there really is such a ‘behind-the-curtain’ cabal I’d suggest the City of London Corporation. The last Lord Mayor of which was the person recently proposed by the home office to chair of the forthcoming inquiry into institutional child abuse, Fiona Woolf. Go figure, as the Yanks put it!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval.
Thanks tdf – another interesting read. Not sure I buy the Lord Mayor as the seat of power though. Our Fiona doesn’t appear to have it in her, to be honest.
The City as ‘the Establishment’ does have something in it though – if only because money is power, and the links between the likes of Heywood and Blair on the one hand and banks like JP Morgan on the other demonstrates the willingness to exercise that power. Maybe the Civil Service controls the government and the City controls the Civil Service. But who controls the City?
The biggest fish in the market at any given time.
Conservatives go to the mansion house and promise light touch regulation.
Labour go to the mansion house and promise light touch regulation.
Lib Dems would go to the mansion house and promise light touch regulation.
UKIP would go to the mansion house and promise lighter touch regulation.
Plus ca change plus c’est la meme chose !
Andy-
“Who controls the City?”
The markets or perhaps as Sabre put it the biggest fish in the markets at a particular time?
As Sabre rightly says all the parties basically support ‘light touch’ regulation in financial services. I wonder what would have happened if the roles had been reversed during the last financial crisis and Labour had come to power in 2010. I suspect they probably would have made a greater effort to prosecute a few token patsy banksters, with a preference for those with political links to the Tories, but I’m not sure anything much at a ‘macro’ level would have changed.
It seems to me that there has been a long term campaign by an element within the establishment and elements of the Murdoch/Tory media to portray Charles as somehow unsuitable for the crown because of him having views on stuff, some of which seem dangerously leftie (from the POV of the reich wing). He certainly seems to have acted indiscretely as regards these letters, but for those advocating an elected head of state for the UK consider the likes of Boris f***ing Johnson (or worse) would be among the potential candidates.
That said, those who favour an elected head of state might look at the model adopted by the UK’s nearest neighbour where the office of the Presidency which has been (generally) free from scandal as compared to the British royals, baring the odd minor contretemps such as the row between Charles Haughey and Mary Robinson.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/and-heres-to-you-mrs-robinson-26293517.html
Perhaps we should take a realistic view of the world we could then temper our expectations accordingly, we wouldn’t be any happier but perhaps somewhat less bemused and frustrated.
The real world has always seen a skew ( to put it mildly) in the distribution of wealth and power.
The truth is that my interests and yours aren’t even of tertiary importance,
Children in care rate several orders of magnitude beyond that and we are relatively rich, well informed, and even powerful in the global context.
War, oppression, child labour and slavery are common in the developing world.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2919540/Oxfam-report-finds-80-world-s-richest-billionaires-wealth-bottom-50-percent-global-population-3-5-BILLION-people.html
Richest 80 people in the world revealed… and 35 of them are American citizens
The combined wealth of the 80 richest billionaires is the same amount as that of the bottom 50% of the Earth’s population, Oxfam said in a new report
Eight of the top ten wealthiest billionaires are American
Oxfam found a steep drop and that 388 billionaires had the same amount of money as the bottom 50% of the Earth’s population in 2010
The charity’s report also said that the richest 1 percent of the population will own more than half the world’s wealth by 2016
Wise words there Sabre, particularly in your opening paragraph.
It seems to me that some people spend/waste almost their entire lives kicking against the system of things and for what? Nothing ever really changes except the things that were going to be changed anyway.
Life isn’t fair, never was, never will be, but that doesn’t stop many people from enjoying their lives. I don’t think many of them realise just how much worse their lives could be. If this current system of things were ever to be brought down, it would soon be replaced with something similar or possibly something 10 times worse.
There are rules for monarchy but they change with changing times. Changes in communications and deference mean that scandals are harder to hush up. As head of state you are never merely symbolic, many countries with heads of state who don’t actively take the reins are considered to be the final check on government. Already royal duties have changed with many duties being given directly to Will rather than Charles. Other than nostalgic titular indulgence why would we allow important matters to be dealt with by heredity? Royals who aren’t up to scratch can pass on more onerous duties, abdicate or face being forcibly sidelined. Many matters in the recent past have been dealt with in unorthodox ways.
Queen constitutionally neutral? Sure!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/16/scottish-independence-queen-intervene-yes-vote-fears
The Windsors have shot their bolt in Scotland
This is slightly off piste but whilst rummaging through some old 80s music recently, I found the cassette version of Frankie Goes To Hollywood’s Power of Love.
There’s an unlisted track in which Chris Barrie does an impression of Prince Charles reciting a quote from Geli Raubal, Hitler’s niece: “My uncle is a monster. No one can imagine what he demands of me”.
http://www.zttaat.com/track.php?title=1413
Geli committed suicide at the age of 23 following a rumoured sexually abusive relationship with him.
http://www.historyinanhour.com/2013/09/18/geli-raubal-hitlers-niece/
Odd that Frankie transposed the quote to Chas as I understand he was fond of his Uncle Dickie.
Really interesting read.
He always strikes me as a deeply troubled man. I’d presume any ‘deal’ would involve him stepping aside.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-228751/Moment-madness-destroy-Charles.html
The Mail don’t appear to have that many stock photos of him and some of the same ones keep appearing.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2934006/A-royal-household-s-backstabbers-s-nicknamed-Wolf-Hall.html
Clouds and silver linings.
Of course today’s Sir Robert Armstrong , Sir Jeremy Heywood can announce on Radio 4 in thirty or forty years time that the “Constitutional Crisis” left us no choice but to neutralise the Establishment CSA inquiry.
;)
Sir Jeremy is indeed just the man for the job too !
According to the Hutton Inquiry he failed to minute Prime Ministerial meetings re Dr David Kelly he was rewarded for this onerous omission by getting a Directorship at Morgan Stanley, a decent and profitable interval elapses before returning to The Cabinet Office.
Consummate fool? No, perfect man for the job, Machiavelli’s wet dream.
Hi Gojam – a very interesting article, impeccably sourced I’m sure. I have one question… Who exactly is this “Establishment” you refer to?
We are accustomed to thinking the term refers to a class of people, embedded within and across the different pillars of our democracy. It is a class (we presume) that doesn’t so much act in a coordinated way (with one mind, you might say), but rather is uncoordinated, with individuals looking after their friends, preserving the status quo, etc. But if this is the case, then who would Charles be doing his ‘Deal’ with? Who can be setting out the terms of any agreement? More importantly, who is holding the cards and deciding when to release the material which your article implies exists? Is it the Security Services, the Tory Party, a cabale of Banksters, the Freemasons, the Press even? And who are you suggesting is leading such a body? Murdoch? The Duke of Kent? A criminal mastermind perhaps? Whoever they are, they would clearly be in a very powerful position and prepared to use blackmail as a tool to rule our country.
Whoever it is (and assuming they exist), I’m not entirely sure I want that person holding the reigns of power in this country WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE or consent of the British people. That is NOT democracy. We may not all approve of having an unelected Head of State being, but at least we know who it is. So if we had choice between ‘stability’ and a king with a conscience, prepared to speak his mind, I know which I’d choose.
Please delete the word “so” before ‘democracy’, 2nd paragraph. Thnx.
here here completely agree
The “establishment is the civil service and all its’ various departments. They have run this country pretty much, since the invention of taxes and there are departments that are almost “inherited” by various strands of the population. The “glass ceiling” in the tax office where, unless you are willing not to notice certain things, then you stand no chance of progressing career wise. The “Sir Humphrys” of this world are not mere humour and caricatures, they exist and they are who truly wield the power in our state. The whole neo Liberal agenda has hit them hard, they don;t take kindly to having to kowtow to some foreigner in a cheap suit with their own form of glib management speak and Chuck sticking his oar in would be seen as the last straw. They pride themselves on the facts as they see it being that, revolutions come and go , they remain and Britain holds steadfast in a sea of political uncertainty
Thanks Stardog. So the answer as to which individual wields the power I was talking about is the Cabinet Secretary, that manages the Establishment via bodies such as the PSMG? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_Secretary_(United_Kingdom)
And hence, if you and Gojam’s article are correct, Prince Charles is currently being blackmailed by Sir Jeremy Heywood, the man who actually runs the country and who is best known by the public as the person holding up the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war. Interesting….
Gojam? Any thoughts?
A very interesting blog post Gojam. I enjoyed reading that.
It’s quite surprising just how many people currently believe that the monarchy is only symbolic and a tourist attraction that has no power. As pointed out in the above blog post, and worth repeating, the Head of State signs every piece of legislation into law.
Occasionally, the Head of State has declined to sign every piece of legislation into law. How powerful is that?
Having said that, it’s possible that Charles may over estimate his power if and when he becomes King. Should that happen, I feel sure he would soon be made aware of the error of his ways and guided gently back onto the right path, as some might see it.
I feel that every effort would be made to avoid a constitutional crisis, should it arise. But who knows? Some may actually welcome it. We live in very uncertain times.
I’m tempted to go into Common Law versus Roman Law/the continental system, but I’ll leave that for another time.
It is symbolic. The last law refused assent was the Scottish Militia Bill and that was on the advice of ministers.
The Privy Council is sometimes petitioned, effectively a plea to Ministers to oppose.
When did the Monarch last arbitrarily veto a Bill ?
Tony Benn – Against a monarchy, but at least he knows why he’s against it !
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/nov/11/constitution.monarchy
” … Stanley Baldwin very soon realised that the empire would not accept Mrs Simpson as queen, and FORCED THE KING TO SIGN the instrument of abdication as the necessary pre-condition for the continuation of the crown itself. This was seen as essential to those who make up the establishment because it performs many functions that are held – by them – to be central to the maintenance of their own power and influence…. ”
“The royal prerogative, exercised not by the Queen but by the prime .minister in her name… ”
“Declarations of war and Britain’s adherence to treaties such as the new European constitution are exercised under prerogative powers by the prime minister, who may or may not choose to consult the Commons or the electorate in a referendum.”
The reality of the situation is actually this… http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills
‘When did the Monarch last arbitrarily veto a Bill?’
Good question Sabre. I don’t mind admitting that I didn’t know the answer to that, so I looked it up. Apparently it was Queen Anne in 17 something or other.
If and when Charles becomes King, I think it’s inevitable, given that he will only reign for a relatively short period of time, that he will want to make his mark and leave behind something of note for the historians. We all know traditions can and do change.
About Edward V111’s abdication. I believe he was forced to abdicate because he was a Nazi sympathizer and Wallis Simpson came along at just the right time (coincidence?) and provided a slightly more acceptable reason for his abdication.
@stardog re the link you cited.
” … A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: “It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers.” … ”
Note – a long established Convention ( the gift is Parliament’s not the Monarch’s)
Note – unless advised to do so by ministers
” … A spokesman for Prince Charles said: “In modern times, the prince of Wales has never refused to consent to any bill affecting Duchy of Cornwall interests, unless advised to do so by ministers. Every instance of the prince’s consent having been sought and given to legislation is a matter of public record… ”
Note – unless advised to do so by ministers.
Hi, there are two issues that we need to look at.
1) The Head of State does not veto legislation, though theoretically she can. That isn’t the issue. The issue is that in the UK’s constitution a Head of State MUST sign off legislation and if the Queen can’t do it then someone else must and if he can’t do it someone must. The role might be symbolic but the position of Head of State is not symbolic unless the entire constitution is rewritten.
2) The concerns regarding Prince Charles are not that he might necessarily veto legislation. They are that he may seek to influence government policy privately or seek to influence public opinion on an issue.
@ Michelle totally agree re Eddy 8 , interestingly you go a long way to prove that the Monarchy is indeed symbolic.
Those that were truly in power had decided that War with Germany was going to be forced on us, Eddy 8 forgot his symbolic place in the scheme of things, the rest as they say is history !
@ Gojam,
I hear you, I have no special place in my heart for the Monarchy.
The persona of the monarchy is the Monarch, the power of the Monarchy is invested in the Prime Minister , the Cabinet, the Privy Council in effect
Sir Jeremy Heywood.
Regarding the possibility that Chas may seek to influence policy privately or public opinion, the only problem with either or both of those is the fact that he is unelected.
Should we turn to Republicanism we would be granted the right to vote for yet another of the bastards that we already return to the palace of varieties.
A President that would stand for A B and C against D E and F while receiving funding from lobbies without a single voter against the interests of most of the voters.
Once elected the President would support D E and F while vetoing A B and C.
I don’t think god has anything to do with it. If he had thought we needed a royal family he would have given them brains. Which they all lack.
He gave us LibLabConUkip, presumably he took the view that we needed to be governed by Bankster loving war mongering perverts ?
Worry not, these problems are not unanticipated in our history.
The Royals and their advisers, The Cabinet Office, The Privy Council, The Bishops and The General Staff all know the score.
The stories in the press, if they are even relevant to this subject, will have been placed as a pre emptive positioning exercise.
The Monarchy IS symbolic although that is not to diminish its importance in the scheme of things, should the Monarch try to assume a non-symbolic role he/she will be well aware that it would be not merely opposed but countered, albeit out of sight of the great unwashed,
We have spent a couple of years on this blog discussing ad nauseum, the fact that certain rules apply to US and other rules apply to THEM.
They DO know that rules apply to them, albeit different ones.
Chas 1 was decapitated, Eddy 8 abdicated ( all his own idea of course !)
Who knows what else has happened behind the scenes.
The woman who once aspired to be Queen Diana had a car accident.
“‘A quiet constitutional revolution is afoot,’ Dimbleby has said. ‘I predict that he will go well beyond what any previous constitutional monarch has ever essayed.’
A former aide says: ‘He won’t care if people accuse him of interfering, but he does know he will have to be more cautious.
‘His view is that he was sent by God to change the world, and he sees it as his royal duty to push his views.’”
…
“Until now, friends of the Prince were convinced he was involving himself with such fervour in public issues because he knew that once he became King such activity would have to stop. But now something has changed.
Perhaps it is that the old conventions are dying. Or perhaps — as friends suggest — he has observed his mother and decided that with her being such a model monarch, so many opportunities for improvements in certain areas of British life have been lost.
‘He sees the tradition of discretion embodied by the Queen as relatively recent, and feels that traditions can change,’ says a long-standing member of his household. So he has let it be known that as King he will be significantly more than just a figurehead.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2933811/Charles-Hellbent-meddling-monarch-New-book-reveals-ambition-cause-constitutional-crisis.html
On the face of it some causes for concern, however, Dimbleby does have a book to sell.
Problems will be dealt with in-house, there is no place for the monarch interfering in politics, professional lobbies pay huge sums to interfere in policy on behalf of Banksters, arms dealers, oil, big pharma, various other industries, Saudi Arabia, Israel.
Chas doesn’t have the training to corrupt the aforementioned utopian machine.
It’s not Dimbleby’s book.
A good point well made, however, the publisher and the author both know that a book that says ‘ … Continuation of ancient regime, nothing new to report … ‘ is hardly likely to outsell ‘ Harry Potter’
Chas and The Mail have history, do they not?
Chas v Daily Fail or Sunday Fail.
Click to access HRH%20Prince%20of%20Wales-v-Associated%20Newspapers%20Ltd%20ChD%2013%20Jan%202006.pdf
Gojam when are you publishing the ‘huge’ story you mentioned on twitter a couple of weeks ago.? hope it is soon
what the people need is the truth. and for those in power to be exposed for the corrupt sociopaths that most of them are. They certainly do not need the monarchy.
In a modern democracy there is no need of a Monarchy. Personally I feel they are privileged parasites.
There is the old story that was doing the rounds that. When Cameron entered politics the chair of the Tory party was summoned to the palace and told “This man will go far”. Both Cameron 5th cousin once or twice removed depending who you listen to and Osbourne 7th cousin I believe, are however extended it might be, are considered “in house” when it comes to the monarchy. Make of that what you will.
Interesting. But is it really likely that all the Andrew/Epstein coverage is a concerted campaign to pressure the Royal Household into making secret promises that Charles will behave himself as king? Or is it more likely that a story fell into Fleet Street’s lap following US coverage of a court case there, handily reinforcing the “Randy Andy” angle that – perhaps with good reason – has been a regular feature of our papers’ royal coverage for the last 30 years? Wouldn’t Occam plump for the second explanation?
It’s not the story it is the degree of coverage by The Daily Mail, of all papers, that needs to be considered.
Ah, yes, that is quite striking. Plus this in the Mail this week: “Beatrice ‘the scrounger’: Unemployed royal under attack for jet set lifestyle after taking three holidays in barely a month”, which was also covered by the Express, even (“Princess Beatrice is ‘splashing the cash in a time of austerity'”).
The case which is only now being covered started many months ago. It was known but unconfirmed that Andrew was involved. The coverage is unusually strong for the right wing papers and BBC.
Pingback: Constitutional Crisis | Alternative News Network